Virginia House, Senate move to fast-track CTE teachers
With a growing demand for skilled workers, Virginia lawmakers are tackling a critical issue: the shortage of career and technical education (CTE) teachers. A bipartisan effort to provide an alternative pathway for CTE instructors has cleared both chambers of the General Assembly and now awaits review by the governor.
Businesses across the state have struggled to fill workforce gaps, a challenge that has been a major focus of Gov. Glenn Youngkin's administration. While CTE programs are seen as a vital pipeline for future workers, they face the same staffing shortages as public schools.
'The shortage is expected to worsen over the next five years, and the demand for these programs is increasing,' said Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, who sponsored Senate Bill 879, during a Senate subcommittee hearing last month.
Virginia recorded more than 708,800 students enrolled in at least one CTE course during the 2022-23 school year, Ebbin noted. Yet, filling teaching positions remains a major hurdle — especially for career switchers facing what he called 'unrealistic coursework' requirements before they can teach in their specialized fields.
Ebbin's legislation and House Bill 2018 aim to address this challenge by allowing CTE teacher candidates to receive a provisional license for up to three years. To qualify, candidates must have completed high school or hold an equivalent certificate, along with a special certificate or license in their subject area.
The programs impacted include construction, manufacturing, public safety, and transportation. But unlike traditional teacher licensure, candidates would not have to fulfill all Virginia Board of Education requirements for a full teaching license.
Del. Bonita Anthony, D-Norfolk, who carried the legislation in the House and transitioned from engineering to teaching, emphasized the legislation's broader impact. 'By addressing teacher shortages and supporting CTE programs, this bill strengthens Virginia's workforce and classrooms,' she said.
Her bill was modified to align with the Senate version, which was more 'narrowly focused,' according to House Education Committee Chair Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke.
A key addition to the House version of the bill was the equivalency assessment framework, designed to ensure licensure keeps pace with evolving industry standards. The legislation has drawn backing from some Northern Virginia school divisions, the Virginia Manufacturers Association, SkillsUSA Virginia Foundation, and the Virginia Association for Career and Technical Education.
While education advocates generally support giving candidates time to earn industry credentials, some worry about cutting essential coursework. Virginia Education Association Policy Analyst Chad Stewart told a Senate subcommittee last month that skipping key teaching courses — such as classroom management — could hurt new instructors.
'We think these teachers are going to be more likely to stay in the classroom if they have these skills,' Stewart said. 'They're also three-hour courses that you can take over the course of three years while you're on your provisional license. We don't see this as overbearing. We see these as essential courses that should be taken by all teachers to be effective and serve all students well.'
Despite the debate, the legislation is moving forward. On Thursday, the Senate Education and Health Committee advanced HB 2018 to the full Senate for consideration.
Meanwhile, Ebbin's version of the bill sailed through the Senate with a unanimous 40-0 vote on Monday and now heads to the House for consideration.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Palestinians' ‘right to self-determination' needs to be considered too
To the editor: Guest contributor Mark Brilliant makes his opinions clear but fails to convince ('Anti-Zionism is antisemitism — university leaders settle the question,' July 21). His assertion regarding the House testimony ignores how the Trump administration has punished students and researchers at schools that failed to toe its line. Brilliant claims anti-Zionism is 'denying to the Jewish people the right to self-determination.' Here is the question he should ask: Is Zionism a denial of the Palestinians' right to self-determination? Further, were the Palestinian people treated fairly by the partition of their land? Should we continue to support Israel's 70 years of gradual seizure of more Palestinian land in the West Bank, its intention in the long run to prevent the Palestinians from ever having a state of their own and the violence that has ensued as both side's extremists fight for their 'rights'? Is the revulsion many of us feel about how Israel is slaughtering civilians in Gaza 'anti-Zionism' or human decency? Few Americans question Israel's right to exist, but many question the senseless violence of its government in response to the senseless violence of Hamas. Michael Snare, San Diego .. To the editor: Brilliant takes an affirmative response to a gotcha question ('Is denying the Jewish people their rights to self-determination … antisemitism? Yes or no?') and leaps to his desired conclusion: that the university officials agreed that anti-Zionism is antisemitic. But he is wrong when he says that the Jewish right to self-determination is the textbook definition of Zionism. In fact, Zionism is the movement to establish a Jewish state in biblical Israel. I believe everyone has a right to self-determination, so I might have answered the gotcha question affirmatively too. But no one has the 'right' to occupy land where others live just as no one has a right to seize homes and orchards, to tell people where they must live and that they can't leave or to deny others their right to self-determination by basing democratic rights such as the right to vote or the right to travel on one's ethnicity. And, of course, no one has a 'right' to bomb hospitals and starve children. It is not antisemitic of me to say so. Clyde Leland, Berkeley .. To the editor: In response to Brilliant's op-ed that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, I would like to point out that people who criticize Zionism probably don't object to Jewish rights to self-determination or statehood. The problem is real estate. The Bible may have promised the land of Israel to the Jews, but if you look at things from a strictly historical perspective, a lot more non-Jews have lived on the land in question than Jews. Many of the people who established the state of Israel came from Europe (for admittedly good reasons) and pushed the native Arab population into refugee camps where it's lived for the last 70-odd years. Now government officials in Israel and the U.S. are talking openly about completely removing this population. That's ethnic cleansing, and as uncomfortable as it is for many to admit, it's hard to see that ethnic cleansing is not intrinsic to Zionism. You can't establish a Jewish state in a place where other people already live without kicking those people out. That's what people don't like about Zionism. If you could take away the mandatory Arab eviction part, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it. William Griffith, Oxnard
Axios
21 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Emmer confident Senate will pass crypto market structure bill
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said at an Axios News Shapers event Wednesday that he's confident the Senate will take up a sweeping market structure bill. Why it matters: Emmer has been one of the most vocal advocates in Congress for the crypto industry and has been pushing the Senate to take up House-passed crypto bills. "This is a non-partisan issue," Emmer told Axios' Hans Nichols. Catch up quick: The House passed three major cryptocurrency bills as part of "Crypto Week" earlier this month, including Emmer's Anti- CBDC bill. The Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday released its own draft version of the crypto market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, that also passed the House this month. What's next: Emmer said he leaves it up to Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on how the Senate will pass the CLARITY Act, but he sees "no reason" why the bill can't pass on it's own.
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Senate votes to consider former Trump lawyer for lifetime as appeals court judge
The Senate narrowly voted to move forward with considering the nomination of former Trump lawyer Emil Bove to a federal court of appeals on Tuesday. The 50-48 vote saw one Republican break ranks and vote against his nomination, while Democrats have done everything in their power to slow down the nomination. Bove, who currently works at the Justice Department, is nominated to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats have argued that Bove, a former defense attorney for President Donald Trump, is unfit for the role, pointing to allegations that he proposed behind closed doors that the Trump administration could simply ignore judicial orders. Bove denies those allegations. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted with Republicans to move forward but said in a statement that she will oppose Bove's confirmation on a final vote. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the lone Republican to vote against moving forward with Bove's nomination. "We have to have judges who will adhere to the rule of law and the Constitution and do so regardless of what their personal views may be," Collins said in a statement. "Mr. Bove's political profile and some of the actions he has taken in his leadership roles at the Department of Justice cause me to conclude he would not serve as an impartial jurist." Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee stormed out of the meeting where the committee approved Bove last week. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., attempted to push for more debate time, but Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, pushed forward with the vote. "What are you afraid of?" Booker erupted, after Grassley tried to speak over him and hold the vote. "Debating this [nomination], putting things on the record — Dear God," he said, "that's what we are here for." "What are they saying to you," he said, referring to the Trump administration, "that is making you do something to violate the decorum, the decency and the respect of this committee to at least hear each other out?" Booker ended the sharp exchange with Grassley by saying simply, "This is wrong, sir, and I join with my colleagues in leaving," before streaming out of the committee room. It comes as Trump administration officials have taken aim at "activist" judges they argue are blocking the president's agenda and preventing him from enacting his sweeping policy goals, including the administration's crackdown on border security and immigration.
